From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Oct 5 20:24:14 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB96E41CA5 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:24:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from msa1.earth.yoonka.com (yoonka.com [88.98.225.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "msa1.earth.yoonka.com", Issuer "msa1.earth.yoonka.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24AD8BD3 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:24:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from ultrabook.yoonka.com (x2f7ff22.dyn.telefonica.de [2.247.255.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by msa1.earth.yoonka.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v95KO5n6061948 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:24:06 GMT (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) X-Authentication-Warning: msa1.earth.yoonka.com: Host x2f7ff22.dyn.telefonica.de [2.247.255.34] claimed to be ultrabook.yoonka.com Subject: Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20171004232819.GA86102@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <201710050027.v950RBFT047711@gw.catspoiler.org> <20171005083558.GD95911@kib.kiev.ua> <20171005145116.GA96180@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20171005145941.GL95911@kib.kiev.ua> <20171005152520.GA96545@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <9B1E1C51-7D87-4DBC-8E7A-D9657BBAAC91@adamw.org> <20171005162853.GA96784@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20171005184118.GA97889@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> From: Grzegorz Junka Message-ID: <0d2e2a5e-fa78-81ad-ec39-eaaf06fd133f@gjunka.com> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:24:00 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171005184118.GA97889@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB-large X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 20:24:14 -0000 On 05/10/2017 18:41, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 10:52:51AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > (courtesy long-line wrap) > >> You seem to be fully convinced in a conspiracy to destroy >> portmaster, and I don't get the impression that I'm going >> to change your mind. All I can tell you is that impending >> portmaster breakage is NOT by design, and is only happening >> because portmaster isn't actively developed anymore. If >> you'd like to believe in secret poudriere cabals and >> anti-portmaster conspiracies, that's up to you. > Nope. No conspiracy theory here. But, the above is a good > method to deflect attention and blame. > > I simply find it ironic/comical that someone dreamt up > flavours/subpackage for the ports collections with the > knowledge that this will break all tools used to manage > ports, and portmgr which is charged with > > Discusses how that the way that the Ports Collection is > implemented affects the above policies, and, in particular, > such concepts as changes that require regression tests and > sweeping changes. > > (see https://www.freebsd.org/portmgr/) seems to have endorsed > a "sweeping change" with this outcome. > > Then that someone managed to convince developers of a single > ports management tool to implement support for flavours/subpackaged. > So, portmgr now is going ahead with a "sweeping change" at the expense > of all other ports management tool. I have simply pointed out, portmgr > and contributors to that single ports manange tool have a significant > overlap. Nope. No conspiracy. Just the truth. > > So, Adam, if the poudriere developers had stated that poudriere > would not support flavors/subpackages would portmgr still wedge > the necessary infrastructure into the Makefiles and *.mk files? > I don't understand this argument. Are flavours / subpackages good / desirable or they are not good / undesirable? As far as I know they enable features that otherwise wouldn't be possible. So surely not the later. So if the former, could they have been designed in a way that doesn't break existing build tools? Maybe yes, but if that was the case then surely someone would have proposed such a design? Or maybe even implemented it. Maybe at an additional cost of non-trivial changes somewhere else. Maybe updating the build tools was the easier option. In the end those are just build tools and no one should expect them to never change. But if that was the case, how would they go about updating ports to support new features? Of course, they would discuss with the maintainers of those tools, (why wouldn't they ?), if the change is feasible to implement in the tools and would take less effort than the mentioned change somewhere else instead. How many maintainers they would need to contact? I know of 4 - portmaster, portupgrade, synth and poudriere. Am I missing something? Oh, yes, the mighty make. But it will be mass-updated so no need to look for anyone. So, who should they contact to discuss the support for ports/subpackages in portmaster, portupgrade and synth? Should they hold off until a maintainer is found? Should they pay for updating these tools from their pocket (using their time)? GrzegorzJ